Laura Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476

Officer Laura Kubiak, a Chicago Police Department officer detailed to the Office of News Affairs (ONA), alleged a November 2012 verbal assault by fellow ONA officer Veeja Zala and reported it to ONA Director Melissa Stratton, her supervising lieutenant Maureen Biggane, and Internal Affairs Division (IAD).
Kubiak alleged Zala had a history of violent conduct (including a prior civil verdict against him) and that the City had not disciplined him; she and a coworker Robert Perez later corroborated the incident to IAD.
After IAD sustained Kubiak’s complaint, Biggane canceled Kubiak’s ONA detail and reassigned her to midnight beat patrol in a dangerous neighborhood; Perez was similarly removed while Zala remained at ONA.
Kubiak sued the City, Stratton, and Biggane under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and for conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights; the district court granted defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed with prejudice.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Kubiak’s complaints were made pursuant to her official duties and did not address a matter of public concern, so they were not First Amendment–protected speech; the conspiracy claim failed for the same reason.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kubiak’s complaints are protected First Amendment speech	Kubiak contends she spoke as a private citizen reporting a violent officer and concerns for public safety	Defendants argue her reports were made pursuant to official duties and thus not citizen speech under Garcetti	Held: Not protected—speech was made pursuant to official duties
Whether Kubiak’s speech addressed a matter of public concern	Kubiak argues her reports implicated officer misconduct and public safety, so they are matters of public concern	Defendants say the content, form, and context show a personal grievance about safety at work, not public concern	Held: Not public concern—speech aimed at personal grievance/protection
Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate	Kubiak claims pleadings plausibly show protected speech and retaliation	Defendants argue complaint fails to allege facts showing citizen speech on public concern	Held: Affirmed dismissal—pleadings insufficient to state a First Amendment claim
Validity of conspiracy claim under § 1983	Kubiak alleges Stratton and Biggane conspired to deprive her rights by reassigning her after the complaint	Defendants argue conspiracy claim depends on protected speech, which is absent	Held: Conspiracy claim dismissed because underlying speech not protected

Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard on review)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employees speaking pursuant to official duties are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes)
Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2008) (practical inquiry into official duties beyond job description)
Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2008) (speech “intimately connected” to job functions is employee speech)
Meade v. Moraine Valley Cmty. Coll., 770 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2014) (definition of public concern and relevance of content/form/context)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (content, form, and context test for public concern)
Bivens v. Trent, 591 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2010) (focus on particular content of speech; internal complaints often personal)
Kristofek v. Vill. of Orland Hills, 712 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2013) (motive and mixed motives in public-concern analysis)